¶ … Regulation Ecks Company is a firm with most of its workers and shareholders as well as operating in State Y despite being incorporated and headquartered in State X. One of the small branches of this company decided to hire an industrial spy, Mr. Seven in order to gather secrets from a large business rival in State Z in 1980. Mr. Seven was successful in his work since he supplied the small branch of Ecks Company with information regarding the competitor's most vital industrial secrets for over a year. The small branch then passed on the information to Ecks Company including information about State Z's national defense. When the industrial spy was caught red handed in 1981, he was convicted of espionage and agreed to testify against the company and branch manager in order to get a reduced sentence. This was followed by a series of events including prosecution of the company by State Z and a lawsuit between the states at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). As State X alleges that the firm was denied justice, State Z is likely to raise several objections to the jurisdiction of ICJ.

Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice

For a long period, universal jurisdiction has had a stable history despite some turbulent and dramatic periods. Throughout the years, the principle of universal jurisdiction has played a stable, modest, and beneficial role in issues regarding extra-territorial scope of state law applied by state courts (Steiner, 2004, p.199). Notably, universal jurisdiction has seemingly been unproblematic because of its narrow scope and application in a non-threatening. However, the dramatic and turbulent times in its recent history have been brought by intense political debate and divisive scholarly arguments. Currently, the principle of universal jurisdiction entails a wide range of issues including criminal investigations and prosecutions for involvement in grave international crimes stipulated in state law.

The International Court of Justice was established on the premise of the principle of universal jurisdiction to help deal with extra-territorial scope of state law. In its contemporary form, the International Court of Justice acts as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. This court has general jurisdiction over disputes between nations, especially members of the United Nations, which is virtually every nation across the globe (Posner & de Figueiredo, 2004). As it's currently constituted, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over three kinds of cases i.e. special agreement cases in which parties agree to submit their dispute to the court, cases endorsed by a treaty as long as future issues will be determined by the court, and disputes between states that are voluntarily subject to the court.

Since commencing its operations in 1946, the International Court of Justice has determined dozens of cases or disputes. Actually, the court has considerable political and scholarly significance since most of its judgments have helped resolve real international issues or disputes. While states have in many instances failed to adhere to ICJ's judgments or acknowledge its jurisdiction, it's still a powerful symbol of the likelihood of an international legal system. The court's supporters have argued that it plays a major role in promoting the legitimacy of the international legal system through resolving disputes or issues in a principled way. However, its critics postulate that the court's rulings are usually politically motivated since mainly politicians and diplomats seem to lose their cases.

Potential Objections to ICJ's Jurisdiction by State Z

Despite being a powerful symbol of the potency of an international legal system, the International Court of Justice has experienced several challenges in its recent cases, especially with regards to its jurisdictions. For instance, in 103 cases filed at the court, nearly half of them were dropped before the court could make substantive decisions or rulings. In essence, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to hear and determine some cases has been the source of major controversies surrounding its judicial process and system. The scenario involving Ecks Company is an example of a situation where the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is likely to be challenged. In the initial case against the company and its branch office's manager by State Z, the firm did not hire a lawyer to represent it in court or answered charges against it. Consequently, the court made a default ruling and confiscated assets of Ecks Company's small branch, which was not appealed to the state's appellate courts. The company persuaded State X to file a case against State Z at the...

State Z is likely to challenge the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice given that Ecks Company did not hire a lawyer to represent them in the initial case nor appealed the ruling.
In its challenge, State Z is likely to raise several objections on the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which has experienced jurisdiction issues in most of its cases to an extent that it has dropped some of them. Some of the most common objections the state is likely to raise include

Reflection of Ideology in the Court's Rulings

One of the possible objections to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is whether the rulings by its judges reflect ideology or whether it would reflect disinterested utilization of the traditions of legal reasoning (Posner & de Figueiredo, 2005, p.600). Judges decisions and voting patterns has been an issue of considerable interest for legal academies, especially in relation to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Many legal academics have argued that ICJ is a court that is similar to domestic courts in the United States and other nations across the globe. Given this consideration, judicial voting is a major issue surrounding the court's jurisdictions based on the premise on whether the rulings reflect ideology or national interests in which legal reasoning is applied in a conventional manner.

In most cases, judges at the court are increasingly likely to be influenced by other legal considerations and national interests like the appropriate interpretation of a treaty. Proper legal outcome is not common in cases at the International Court of Justice because judges make other legal considerations. Therefore, if the case is allowed to continue at the court, a judge from State X is more likely to vote in favor of State X whereas a judge from State Z is more likely to vote for State Z. This implies that the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is challenged on the premise of reflection of ideology or national interests by its judges.

Lack of Suitable Nationality

According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, states are entitled to sponsor claims of their nationals against other states. This requirement is not only done to help ensure diplomatic protection but also establish so that only States can be parties before ICJ, especially for contentious jurisdiction (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2003). Nationality is an important issue in the scenario of Ecks Company because it involves contentious jurisdiction.

In this case, State Z is likely to object the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in determining the case on the premise of lack of suitable nationality. While ICJ's statutes permit states of a dual national to sponsor a lawsuit on behalf of their national, there must be an authentic link between the national and sponsoring state. Without an authentic link, there is lack of suitable nationality, which hinders the jurisdiction of the ICJ. State Z is likely to argue that while Ecks has a formal link to State X through being incorporated, there is no authentic link because it's headquartered in State Y where its operating plant and most of its employees and shareholders are located. In essence, given that most of the company's operations are in another state other than State X, there is no genuine link. Therefore, State X cannot file a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice on the argument that Ecks Company is its national.

Failure of Exhaust All Probable Local Remedies

Based on the statute of the International Court of Justice, the exhaustion of all probable local remedies is important to an extent that it exceeds a procedural requirement. This implies that when a dispute arises, all probable local remedies should be explored before the issue is brought before the court. This is an important requirement because without exhaustion of all probable local remedies, no remedies for legal injury can be feasible at the international level (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2003). However, for foreign nationals to exhaust local remedies, the remedies should be available, easily accessible, effective, and not simply illusory or notional.

In Eck Company case, State Z is likely to object the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice on the premise that the firm did not exhaust all probable local remedies. In addition to failing to hire a lawyer to represent it in the initial court, Ecks did not appeal the court's ruling to State Z's appellate courts. The failure to…